Note on Copyright:
Under Australian copyright law (which governs
the content of this website), it is permissible
to quote from and cite any publicly available document `for the purposes
of criticism and review'. This does not permit wholesale reproduction of
a document, but it does permit selective quotation to facilitate discussion
in the public interest. Since the quotes shown below are taken from the
original draft, itself acquired on the internet, what follows accords fully
with Australian copyright law.

Introduction

The latest draft of the IPCC's `Third Assessment Report' (TAR-2000),
circulated on 16th April 2000, is a massive technical document, the final
version not expected to be published until January 2001.

Most of the findings in this draft are underpinned by one critical assumption
- namely that the `surface record' of global temperature as published by
CRU(UK)
and GISS(USA) is an accurate representation of the
actual temperature history of the earth since 1860. This assumption has
been challenged on numerous occasions by various scientists on a variety
of grounds, the most compelling of which is the failure of the surface
record to match the mutually consistent records from satellites and sonde
balloons. In addition, even an examination of individual
station records on this website shows that the global and hemispheric
statistical aggreggates produced by CRU and GISS bear little relation to
individual records from those weather stations which are known to be free
of local measurement errors such as urban heating, other environmental
distortions, and equipment/procedural faults.

This article is not a critique of the main body of the report. In the
world of environmental politics, few will even get to read that document.
Rather, the `policymakers' (politicians, ministers,
public servants etc.) will be guided by the `Summary for Policymakers'
(SPM), which is the only part of the report they will take any
serious note of. It is this summary which forms the basis of this critique
as it here where the politically biased aspects of the report are at their
most evident.

Cherchez
la `Small Print' !

To begin, here is a strange footnote on page 1 of the SPM, in small
print -

The IPCC have taken 10 years to get the public and policymakers used
to the idea that the phrase `climate change' refers only to possible human-induced
changes. Indeed this very definition is incorporated into the `Framework
Convention on Climate Change', the international treaty which governs inter-governmental
activity on climate research and negotiations.

Here, the IPCC are unilaterally changing that definition to include
all changes, including purely natural ones, but doing so only with
a small-print footnote, so that the report is then free to use the term
`climate change' indiscriminately in such a way that the public and policymakers
may unwittingly attribute all climate changes reported in the document
to human influence. Redefinition of terms to cloud an issue is a common
political practice, but not so common in science.

Re-Inventing
the Past

The IPCC have made a major revision to history, in that they have abolished
the `Medieval Warm Epoch' (MWE)
a very warm period around 1100-1200 AD (during the
Viking era), certainly warmer than today, by as much as +2°C.
In addition, they have rendered the `Little Ice Age'of the 17th century hardly distinguishable from other centuries,
a period when global temperatures were about -1°C cooler than today.
There is only tenuous evidence at best for this revision of history, mostly
from tree rings, but it is consistent with an effort to characterise the
late 20th century as being somehow unique and unprecedented.

To demonstrate these claims visually, they present the following graph
of temperatures over the last 1,000 years. The significance is plain -
according to the SPM, the Medieval Warm Epoch never happened and the Little
Ice Age is hardly detectable. The scale of the revisionism is so breathtaking
as to be positively Orwellian.

The evidence to support these revisions are almost entirely from tree
rings, not the most reliable form of proxy evidence upon which to overturn
well-established facts of climate history. Tree rings only record the climate
of the growing season, not the whole year. Tree rings are also influenced
by rainfall, access to light, and other environmental variables, and are
thus not an exclusive indicator of annual temperature as the tree ring
researchers would have us believe.

The imprint of the MWE is clearly suggested in this tree ring record
(below) from Tasmanian Huon Pines, at the
opposite end of the world to the North Atlantic region (the
only region the IPCC concedes to have been warm during the medieval period).
Of course, being tree rings, it could just be warm summers, or even wet
summers. The Little Ice Age is not evident here, but then again, these
are just seasonal tree rings, not indicators of annual temperature. The
`jump' in tree ring width at the end of the graph is consistent with the
impact of CO2 fertilisation, a positive outcome from
CO2 enhancement..

It has even been shown that tree species in Siberia often fail to show
known past warmings if the snow volume is greater, as would be expected
from increased precipitation following from a warmer climate
[Hughes, Nature, July 8 1999]. It seems the settled unmelted
snow prevents the roots from warming up, thus restricting the growth of
trees during the early spring and giving a false impression to tree-ring
observers of no warming. Just such absurd outcomes are all it takes to
mask the Medieval Warm Epoch in some tree ring studies. In using tenuous
and disputed evidence to suggest the MWE did not exist, we have the first
`discernible political influence' on this report.

Evidence
of the global nature of the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age
is contained in lake bed deposits in Kenya and in the Sargasso Sea (chart).
In overturning a mountain of past evidence of these two events by a few
recent tree ring studies - and treating it as undisputed fact - demonstrates
the IPCC tendency to select those fragments of evidence which accords with
their warming agenda. Since this requires that the late 20th century be
seen as unprecedentedly warm, with 1998 being the `warmest year of the
Millenium', denial of the existence of the Medieval Warm Epoch is essential
to that agenda.

Even the cliche `Warmest Year of the Millenium' for 1998, amounts to
little more than a publicity exercise to engage public attention during
a period of `millenium fever'. There is no means by which anyone can know
the climate of any single year (prior to about 1800)
in the last 1,000 years, so the claims in that regard were entirely frivolous
and designed only for grabbing headlines. That such nonsense should appear
in a purportedly scientific inter-governmental report is all the more reason
to attribute it to yet more `discernible political influence'.

How
Consistent is `consistent with...'?

The satellite record has been subject to intensive reviews, mostly hostile,
in an attempt to find errors, any errors which would force it to exhibit
an upward trend more consistent with that shown by the surface record.
By 2000, the accumulated 21-year trends since 1979 were nearly +0.4°C
for the surface record and +0.1°C for the satellite record, a widening
gap of around around 0.3°C between them.

The obvious `Ockam's Razor' response when confronted with such a discrepancy
is to check to see if one of the data sets might be wrong. That may be
the obvious common-sense response, but that is not the response of the IPCC,
or of the NRC which investigated this problem in January. Instead, both
have fudged the issue, downplaying the importance of the problem. There
have been rigorous and independent reviews of the satellite data, resulting
in very minor upward corrections of only a few hundredths of a degree,
hardly sufficient to justify the claim that the two "are
now more consistent". That was an absurd
and misleading conclusion given the miniscule corrections involved.

The second paragraph even refers to `corrections'
to several data sets `especially' satellite-derived data, implying
that the satellites were the ones in dire need of correction (which
given the tiny corrections involved, they clearly were not).
And yet this statement conceals the only sensible inference to be drawn,
which is that the surface record is the one urgently needing independent
review and correction. The satellites are validated not only by the
rigorous reviews they successfully passed, but also by the network of sonde
balloons which has returned data wholly consistent with the satellite record.

The third paragraph in the IPCC quote above contains
false data. They claim a difference of `about 0.05°C to 0.1°C per
decade' between the surface and satellites. Yet the January 2000 NRC report
into this very problem states it quite clearly as being between +0.25°C
and +0.35°C over two decades, a quite serious difference needing urgent
examination.

Ice

The last sentence in this quote leaves open the suggestion that the
decline in Arctic sea ice may even be worse in other parts of the Arctic.
It's effect is that of innuendo, leaving the the reader to speculate about
the details.

See my article on this Arctic sea ice issue where
the time scale is shown to be the crucial factor. The period cited, 1958-1976
is right in the depths of the post-war cooling (as
per this Jan Mayen Island record above), where Arctic ice expanded from
the record Arctic warmth of the late 1930s. The Arctic today is not as
warm as in the 1930s as station
records from there readily attest. Since the cited IPCC start
years were anomalously cold, of course there has been a decline
in Arctic sea ice since that time. But it was natural variability, not
man-made. Many IPCC claims depend on similar `end-date distortions' as
a means to suggest trends which may not really exist once those distortions
are evened out by longer-term data series.

Interestingly, the SPM makes no mention of Antarctic sea ice. Recent
papers suggest that even though Arctic sea ice has decreased over the period
specified above, Antarctic sea ice has actually increased in extent.
The SPM chooses to highlight Arctic sea ice, but omits to mention Antarctic
sea ice.

Sea
Levels

My researches on the 1841 benchmark on the
`Isle of the Dead' in Port Arthur, Tasmania (which
is tectonically stable), shows just how misleading such claims of
`sea level rise' are. At the `Isle of the Dead', there has been no
rise in sea level at all since the benchmark struck there by Antarctic
explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross in 1841, was examined in 1890, 1985,
and 2000. When the full evidence is considered, there are strong indications
that there was a sea level fall during the 19th century. The IPCC
have no reliable data to pre-date that benchmark and so it stands in stark
testament to the fact that sea levels have not changed significantly in
the 20th century.

Most tide gauges, especially ones with long records, are located in
regions which suffer tectonic activity and/or land uplift/subsidence from
post-glacial rebound (mostly in the northern hemisphere),
or changes in sea bed topography (eg. movements
of sand shoals) affecting tidal patterns in
places like the British Isles and northern Europe.
Such records cannot be reliable and are largely
uncorrectable, particularly when we are looking for such small changes
on the scale of milllimetres and centimetres.

More
El Nino?

Why cite the mid 1970s? The dates appear to have more to do with perceptions
than with their scientific significance. Here is the El Nino/La Nina cycle
since 1970. If we ignore that extra 5 years at the start of the series
we would get the impression of dominance by El Nino. But adding that 5
years puts it into better perspective. If we simply start our series at
1996, that would show La Nina as dominant, a very different interpretation
to the one being promoted.

The idea that El NIno is linked to `global warming' was first postulated
by Kevin Trenberth, partly because El Nino events always create a brief
period of warming, while La Nina creates similar periods of cooling. Thus
the idea that warm El NInos would begin to prevail over cool La Ninas has
an obvious appeal within the warming scenario. The recent resurgence of
La Nina has made Trenberth's claim somewhat redundant and it is therefore
misleading for the IPCC to still promote this linkage.

.

Increases
in Greenhouse Gases

Carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere, but not at the exponential
rate predicted earlier by the IPCC. Instead, the increase has been generally
linear averaging about 1.6 ppm per year over the last two decades. (The
rate of increase is higher during El Nino events and lower during La Nina
events). This is an important difference because an exponential
increase would have resulted in CO2 doubling in a much shorter time than
would be the case with a linear increase. At the present rate, CO2 doubling
from its assumed pre-industrial level of 280 ppm would be expected to occur
in about 120 years from now.

This doubling scenario is the benchmark around which the model predictions
are based and assume, without justification, that fossil fuels will be
used at increasing rates during all that period, irrespecitive of technology
changes, and pays no regard to the expected exhaustion of the world's oil
and gas reserves.

As for methane (CH4) , the IPCC here is being quite
disingenuous. They characterise the rate of increase as having `become
slower' in the past two decades, but the reality is that the increase has
actually stopped since about 1992. Their use of the term `past two decades'
incorporates the pre-1992 methane increases and thus conveys the false
impression that methane is still increasing in the atmosphere. We can therefore
infer a`discernible political influence' behind this misleading characterisation
of methane.

`A
Discernible Human Influence'

Does the IPCC seriously think that the `discernible human influence'
phrase will work a second time round? It caught media attention in 1995,
but the statement itself is quite fatuous since it does not define exactly
which human influences they believe are `discernible'. It is patently self-evident
that there has been human influence on the climate since Man first walked
on the planet. Land clearing, deliberate burning of forests, bush and grassland
(including by aboriginal peoples), de-forestation
etc., all have an impact, however small, on climate.

There is plenty of evidence to show that deforestation on a large scale
raises suface temperature in the region affected by up to 2°C, an effect
which has nothing at all to do with greenhouse gases. Then there are the
urban areas with their own warming micro-climates, again unrelated to greenhouse
gases. There are the human impacts on vast areas of agricultural land which
again may change temperatures into something different than they would
have been in their wilderness state, but without greenhouse gases. Every
large-scale land use change involves a change in albedo (surface
reflectivity) and thus a change, however slight, in the radiative
balance.

In this document, the `human influence' is clearly intended to be applied
only to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the statement is phrased
in such a way that it can also be defended on the grounds of including
all human influences, not just greenhouse gases.

Palaeoclimate

The claim (below) that the surface record
is "more closely scrutinised" is a nonsense given the obvious
avoidance of independent scrutiny of that record. The surface record
shows a warming, so there is no motive to subject it to the same kind of
rigorous review that the maverick satellite record was exposed to. Such
a reluctance to engage in this very necessary review is not the kind of
response which science would or should demand, but is certainly the kind
of inaction one would normally associate with politics.

Note also from this quote the repeat of the earlier claim that the warming
of the last 100 years was exceptional compared with any other time in the
last 1,000 years, again denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Epoch.

The `instrumental record' is the one which is at variance with the satellite
record. Until such time as the surface record is subject to the same independent
and stringent review process (with corrections if
needed), then such claims cannot be credible. The satellite record
is the only one to have passed independent review, leaving the surface
record unreviewed, uncorrected, and simply not credible.

Token
`Uncertainties'

No report claiming the status of `science' would be complete without
a few token `uncertainties', a few harmless expressions of scientific caution
to maintain an image of conservative scientific rectitude. The `uncertainties'
here are in stark contrast to the hard statements of undisputed `fact'
earlier in the summary. They are essentially token expressions and do nothing
to modify or moderate the more alarming statements elsewhere in the policymakers
summary.

Inherent in all these above statements is the assumption that the surface
record is established and scientifically undisputed. They do not even hint
at the conflict between surface and satellites/sondes as a key `uncertainty'
in their above list. Nor do they acknowledge the lack of warming in the
polar regions (which, according to the models, should
show the largest warmings of all), another major `uncertainty'.
To admit to these latter uncertainties might endanger the warming agenda
in a serious way, and are thus not mentioned.

Back
to the Future

The IPCC have returned to their original numbers first popularised at
the Toronto Conference of 1988, namely a predicted warming upon doubling
of CO2 of +1.5°C to +4.5°C, probably to counter
the observation by some critics that the IPCC predictions were being progressively
wound back. Here, they have hosed down any expectations that the predictions
might be moderated even further in this report.

They have even gone back to their old `thermal inertia' theory to explain
away the lack of sufficient warming to date. It had been less used of late,
being replaced by the `sulfates cooling' theory to explain the lack of
warming. Since the sulfates theory is failing to demonstrate its existence
in the very places it should be most evident (eg.
the northern hemisphere), it is interesting that the IPCC are now
restoring the ocean thermal inertia theory.

A
Recently Cracked Record

The fatal flaws in the surface record have already been comprehensively
discussed on this website both here
and also here.
But in spite of this, the IPCC adheres to the surface record as its primary
means to justify to policymakers that warming really is ongoing. Without
it, the IPCC would be left with obscure proxy indicators and computer models,
the latter having proved to be poor predictors of anything.

There has been a significant decline during the 1990s in the number
of weather stations worldwide, especially the crucial non-urban ones. The
result has been an increasing bias toward urban records in the surface
record and a degraded geographical spread. But this has not deterred the
IPCC from presenting the `global mean temperature' estimates as undisputed
fact, with no reservations about the effect this station decline must be
having and has had on the accuracy of the 1990s temperature estimates.

Note also the claim that "it may be difficult
or impossible to detect climate change" if the observational
networks continue to decline. Really? Are the climate changes they predict
so slight as to be undetectable except by fine instruments and statistical
processing? If so, why should the public even be concerned about it? Without
the surface network to provide the raw material there could be no `surface
record' as it is presently promoted. We would have to rely instead on the
satellites and that would remove a vital pillar from the warming theory.

What
Might Have Been ...

Presented here in the SPM are two graphs, one to compare `observations'
( ie. the surface record) with model simulations
using natural climate forcings only, and the other to compare the same
surface record with model simulations using man-made greenhouse gas forcings.

The contrast is both startling and clumsy at the same time. On the one
hand they feed public anxiety with the results of `model simulations',
while on the other hand they present a scenario which says we would
have cooled even further than in the cold period of the 1960s, but
for rising greenhouse gases.

Global cooling is much less benign to human and ecological welfare than
the prospect of warming. Cooling results in droughts, frosts, blizzards,
tornadoes, deaths from cold, and famine. Warming results in greater rainfall
globally with fewer frosts, less famine, and fewer deaths from cold. Are
we being seriously asked to believe that the right hand graph is more scary
than the left hand one? It was only 25 years ago when many scientists (including
leading warming advocate, Stephen Schneider)
were warning of the dangers of an impending ice age. The science which
explains the astronomical causes of ice ages has not significantly changed
and the above charts suggest, paradoxically, that were it not for rising
CO2 in the atmosphere, we could be well on our way by now toward the next
ice age.

Neither graph can be assumed to reflect reality, given the flaws in
the surface record and the lack of proven predictive capability of the
models, but it does demonstrate the degree to which `warming' has been
demonised while `cooling' is now deemed to be `good'. In fact, quite the
reverse is true, it is cooling which should cause the greatest concern,
not warming.

The
Final Report, 2001

When the final report is published next year, it is unlikely the IPCC
will repeat the fiasco of 1995 over the Chapter
8 affair. However, with this latest draft, they appear not to have
learned from the experience of the last 10 years where the use of selective
evidence, treating disputed evidence as undisputed fact, making biased
assertions, and the disproportionate influence of a small group of high-profile
scientists, inspired opposition from both within and outside the scientific
community. Their inability and unwillingness to engage public participation
either before or after their reports are issued is a key weakness behind
the whole IPCC process.

Put simply, the public are unwilling to be `talked down to', and that
is what these reports do. Growing public hostility and/or mere indifference
to the IPCC and its agenda has become reflected in the attitudes and votes
adopted in various parliaments and legislatures of western democracies
as shown by the US Senate, Australia, and the recent fall of the Norwegian
government (due to its pro-Kyoto policies).

Scientism
- the `Dark Side' of Science

Finally, the IPCC is an inter-governmental organisation paid for by
the taxes of ordinary people. They do not welcome any input from the public,
a public who would be profoundly affected (and also
impoverished) by policies arising from this report. The draft TAR-2000
is intended for `experts only' and to reinforce this point, the report
only has a restricted circulation, with this notice on each and every page
-

Such restrictions are against the public interest and an attempt at
preventing public involvement in what is patently a vital public issue.
The vain attempt at restricting access to the report, reflects an elitist
attitude within some sections of the scientific community, namely `scientism'.
We have seen similar attitudes in respect of genetic engineering, cloning
of animals, animal experimentation, nuclear technology, social sciences,
the monopolistic practices of orthodox medicine, and numerous others where
the scientists involved show disdain for public opinion or society's ethics.

Scientism reflects a belief that scientists are the only people fit
to express an opinion on matters within the competence of science, that
scientific `findings' should take precedence over any other kind of knowledge.
Since scientism regards science as universally applicable to any situation,
it follows that any knowledge not acquired by science has little
or no worth. Within this view of knowledge, art and artists are superfluous,
as of course is religion. As for public opinion, only `informed' opinion
counts, scientism regarding scientists as both judge and jury as to what
does or does not constitute `informed' opinion.

Decision-makers can be intellectually intimidated by institutional `findings',
such as those of the IPCC, whenever those findings are characterised as
`scientific'.
The danger this holds for society is that scientism may gain unelected
influence over public policy, at the expense of democracy, and effectively
disenfranchising the people from exercising control over their own lives.
Since scientism asserts universal application for science, there is scarcely
any aspect of public policy which could not in time become the exclusive
preserve of scientists.

There is historical precedent for such a development in the power wielded
by the medieval priesthoods during earlier centuries. Today, panels of
scientists like the IPCC and the NRC, are beginning to usurp a similar
political role, using their self-asserted monopoly over `acceptable' knowledge
as their justification.

Scientism is science with a taste for political power. It is the `dark
side' of science.

The IPCC have consistently shown by its words and deeds that it is very
much part of that `dark side'.